<p>First of all, I want to say that I am NOT complaining about my dilemma and I apologize if anyone is put off by someone whining about having this choice. Trying to decide where to go has been so frustrating--- everyone around me has so many opinions (Harvard is full of jerks! The UC system is going under! Harvard opens doors! Move somewhere new!)...</p>
<p>My dilemma is this: With a choice between UCSF (TETRAD) and Harvard (BBS), just how important is name? I understand that it SHOULD come down to faculty, publications, scientific reputation (and I know UCSF has a terrific one!), etc etc, but it feels almost wrong to turn town the opportunity to go to Harvard. And its not like Harvard is a bad school by any means!</p>
<p>Does anyone have any opinions about the power of "name" when it comes to choosing graduate school? Would a big name open doors, or does scientific reputation trump all? And not just between these two schools... I'm sure there are many people who are considering excellent programs, but one has that "name" that is so hard to turn down. </p>
<p>What decisions have you made, both for and against "name-y" schools, and do you regret your choice?</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>PS: Lets assume $$$ is equal between the two... no one should ever go into soul-crushing debt for a name IMHO!</p>
<p>Are you talking about a PhD program? If so, I doubt there’s enough difference in “name” value to worry about. Fifty other areas of difference between the two programs are going to make more difference – including, given how close the name-values are, where you prefer to live for the next 6-8 years. But of course even before that which labs you want to work with, and how graduate students are treated.</p>
<p>If you are talking about a MS program that feeds into industry rather than academia, there probably are some differences where people from the two programs go (with lots of overlap, too). I don’t know what they are, but you could find out.</p>
<p>It would be stupid and self-defeating to turn down a program that fit you better for a program where you would be abused and miserable but able to say “I went to Harvard.” However, if the two programs are equivalent in their fit for you, and in the opportunities they provide, and the ability to say “I went to Harvard” gives you some joy . . . well, human beings make decisions on worse grounds than that every day.</p>
<p>Sorry! I should have clarified I mean PhD programs, both WITH funding. </p>
<p>In my case, I have a preference to avoid winters and try a new area (I’m originally from Massachusetts) but I know that Harvard is an incredible school with a great reputation. I don’t forsee myself or many people being miserable at either place.</p>
See, I think UCSF has plenty of “name” in the sectors that matter (e.g., academia, biotechnology). I recently attended an event advising on postdoctorate careers and met an alum in venture capital who stated that his UCSF affiliation opened more doors than his Princeton undergrad, due to the involvement of UCSF in this field. This is a great counterexample to the generally believed principle that your undergrad degree is what opens doors in the non-research world. So I think you would have to enter an area far outside of biology before unfamiliarity with UCSF becomes an inconvenience.</p>
<p>In addition, since PhDs are specialized programs, more emphasis will be placed on what field your PhD degree is in rather than from which school your PhD was received. A PhD in history from Harvard will do nothing for you in the sciences or business, though I could see an undergrad degree in history from Harvard still having some clout due to the general education that went with it.</p>
<p>In my opinion, BBS is incredible and sooo friendly! The amount of conferences you will be sent to, the number of incredible guests you get to meet, the number of labs in and out of BBS and Harvard you can collaborate with (MIT, NYU…) is unparalleled. </p>
<p>I worked at UC Berkeley - I know it’s not UCSF, but I imagine the funding works the same way- and grad students had to recycle filtered pipette tips when Harvard let undergrads use them and throw them away for menial work; I never queued more than a day to use the latest equipment at Harvard, while I was delayed 2 weeks to access a large centrifuge machine at Berkeley! It can be so depressing to have to haggle and feel as if you’re given a favour simply to use the equipment needed for your research! </p>
<p>And the name of the university does matter; maybe not so much in the USA, but if you ever want to become a professor or a researcher at a big institution abroad (France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Japan…), the Harvard name will most definitely carry you a long way.</p>
<p>And the name of the university does matter; maybe not so much in the USA, but if you ever want to become a professor or a researcher at a big institution abroad (France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Japan…), the Harvard name will most definitely carry you a long way.</p>
I haven’t sensed a financial strain on UCSF at all; in fact, our stipend is being increased for the second year in a row, and Tetrad is restoring the class size to its original number because it knows it has the funds to support them. (More personally, I can get within-the-week access to UCSF’s new $700,000 deep sequencer, and I liberally throw away still half-full boxes of pipette tips if they so much as sit uncovered overnight…) The explanation for this I generally hear being thrown around is that UCSF’s medical facilities are a major source of income for the school, but I know for a fact that the situation you described at Berkeley is not universal either. Are you sure the limitation in resources is from university-wide financial stress and not just that particular lab’s grant issues?</p>
<p>You want to know if the man on the street will be more impressed with you? Because that’s what it comes down to. Those in your field will be in the know about UCSF’s prestige. San Francisco is a fantastic place to live, btw.</p>
<p>Yeah, I have to go with the general consensus here. For biological/biomedical research, UCSF is one of the absolute top places. I doubt there are any differences at all between resources at UCSF or Harvard when it comes down to BBS-type fields. You already mentioned faculty and research fit, which should almost certainly be your top criterion.</p>
<p>Another thing to think about is whether your work is at all interdisciplinary, or even has the potential to go that way. It looks like UCSF has a lot of biologically-oriented subfields (biomedical engineering, quantitative biology, etc), but if you can see yourself working closely with someone in engineering or computer science or psychology or something, it may be more convenient to do that at Harvard. Still, it isn’t like Berkeley or Stanford are very far from UCSF, so I don’t think that should really end up mattering either. </p>
<p>Anyway, congrats on having such a nice choice!</p>
Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and UCSF were my options, and I decided that Berkeley and UCSF were my top two choices. In other words, my top picks were the ones with least name-dropping potential, a factor I didn’t consider because it just does not matter.</p>
<p>I highly doubt anybody thinks, Man, things would be so much better if I had just chosen the school with a better name.</p>
<p>The name of the program you attend matters not one bit, especially because anyone who’s hiring you as a postdoc or in industry will see UCSF and Harvard as indistinguishable in terms of student and faculty quality.</p>
<p>If you’re thinking of getting a postdoc after your PhD, the name and reputation of your PhD advisor is what matters.</p>
<p>I think grad name does matter. However, UCSF is very prestigious, not some no-name school. Many laypeople won’t know about it because it has no undergrad program, but those who do know will agree it’s top notch. Pick the advisor, not the school.</p>